Shane Hensley comments on the RPG industry

[jasamcarl]

And nasty. Every post I've seen from him has been negative, attacking other people.

At least that's what I recall.

Because of this attitude I find that I seem to disagree with him before I even start reading his posts.

Duncan

This is a double standard commonly held on this board. When the numerous attacks on the 'suits of hasbro' was flying after the rounds of layoffs, that was seen as moral indignation; but dare to call out anyone who posts on this board and who can actually defend themselves and allow me to respond in turn, and i'm the bad guy. I am not so much negative as critical. Your only problem is that i don't go with the popular, 'easy' targets. Its apparently ok to attack someone as long as you don't have to take responsibility for it. That might explain why there is so little inclination to make unfounded, poorly-conceived, inflammatory assertions about those who are not part of this small enworld community.

 

[psionotic]

It would be cool if this thread could stay on subject, because I for one happen to like it. So if the economic lessons and ensuing insults could cease, maybe it won't be closed in the next 8 minutes or so.

Getting back to Deadlands D20 vs Cthulu D20, I'm thinking that these cases might serve as examples for other publishers as to when its good to 'go D20' and when it isn't.

Although I've never played Deadlands, all I've ever heard about it suggests that the quirks of the system (poker hands for spells, high card for initiative, etc) really helped the flavor of the game and made for some unique gameplay. Changing systems to one that doesn't support the flavor of the game as strongly didn't work in many people's minds.

My experience with Cthulu is that the original system itself was in no way especially tied to the feeling of the game. Adding the D20 system then didn't 'take away' from the game at all... (and in fact added something to it, in my opinion)

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled flame war.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Took a little longer than 8 minutes, but not much.

I'll leave this here for now, but let's swing back to the topic, please?

 

[JoeCrow]

Although I've never played Deadlands, all I've ever heard about it suggests that the quirks of the system (poker hands for spells, high card for initiative, etc) really helped the flavor of the game and made for some unique gameplay. Changing systems to one that doesn't support the flavor of the game as strongly didn't work in many people's minds.

My experience with Cthulu is that the original system itself was in no way especially tied to the feeling of the game. Adding the D20 system then didn't 'take away' from the game at all... (and in fact added something to it, in my opinion)

Gotta say I'm with Psionotic on this one. My current crew's been playing together for about 5 years or so, mostly alternating between D&D and Deadlands in the last few. While I bought the core Deadlands d20 books, that was just to see how they did it and to find crunchy bits to rip off (and to throw some $ to m'man Shane in his hour of need).

We've stuck with the Deadlands Classic system for actual playing, mostly coz that's what we're used to. (Hell, we're still using mostly version 1.0.) Deadlands d20 is ok, but we don't feel it the same way we do Classic. Odd, considering how hard it is to get these clowns to play any *other* system besides d20.

In truth, the one thing that I think would have solved almost *all* the complaints with Deadlands d20 is the massive damage adjustment from CoC d20. Unfortunately, that particular mechanic is still stuck in non-open limbo.

On the CoC d20 thing, Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying System is pretty generic in feel. That's kind of the idea. If Chaosium had had the market share to pull it off, and the cojones to OGL it, the BRS could have given d20 a run for it's money. Still might, if they go for it. Hence, the CoC d20 system isn't going to face the same market problems as a conversion from a system that was *specifically* designed for the game in question.

On the BRS vs. d20 thing, it might not make sense for Chaosium to go the OGL route, per se. They're a fairly small company. But a more accessible licensing setup might replicate some of the beneficial effects that the d20 license has had for WotC.

 

[Duncan Haldane]

On the CoC d20 thing, Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying System is pretty generic in feel. That's kind of the idea. If Chaosium had had the market share to pull it off, and the cojones to OGL it, the BRS could have given d20 a run for it's money. Still might, if they go for it. Hence, the CoC d20 system isn't going to face the same market problems as a conversion from a system that was *specifically* designed for the game in question.

IMO the BRS has one big hole in the system - stats are not linked to skills in any way. I've played/read numerous Chaosium games, and this has always bugged me.

Duncan

 

[Lizard]

In truth, the one thing that I think would have solved almost *all* the complaints with Deadlands d20 is the massive damage adjustment from CoC d20. Unfortunately, that particular mechanic is still stuck in non-open limbo.

Just to be anal: No, it isn't (non-open, that is).

From the SRD:
"Massive Damage
If a character ever sustains damage so massive that 50 points of damage or more are inflicted in one deduction, and the character isn't killed outright, the character must make a Fortitude save (DC 15). If this saving throw fails, the character dies regardless of current hit points."

Now, given that in the SRD, changing the numbers (either the 50 or the Save DC) up or down is such an obvious derivative (akin to making Skill Focus give +3 to a skill, for example), that no one would attempt to claim it was any sort of violation of anything.

 

[Synicism]

If you take damage from an 88 and walk away (i.e. with hps left) it WAS NOT A DIRECT HIT. I'm sick of this. Plenty of games have "hero points" or some such and that is exactly the same mechanic.(sorry. Its just a sore point for me)

If I make an attack roll, and I make your AC, I hit you. If I score a critical, I hit you really, really well.

If a "stock" d20 character (with HP and stuff) is holding a bundle of dynamite when it goes off, he takes just as much damage as if someone threw it at him and it blew up at his feet. Same with the rocket. He could blow it up himself and he would take the same damage as if someone shot it at him. He could be tied up, immobile, or unconscious and would still take the same damage if someone set it on the ground and detonated it as if someone shot him with it. So how is it different? Damage is damage. Sorry, but in this case, the analogy fails.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

If a "stock" d20 character (with HP and stuff) is holding a bundle of dynamite when it goes off, he takes just as much damage as if someone threw it at him and it blew up at his feet. Same with the rocket. He could blow it up himself and he would take the same damage as if someone shot it at him. He could be tied up, immobile, or unconscious and would still take the same damage if someone set it on the ground and detonated it as if someone shot him with it. So how is it different? Damage is damage. Sorry, but in this case, the analogy fails.

Uh, no! If you're helpless, the explosion would do an automatic coup de grace on you, and you'd have to make an incredibly hard fort save to stay alive.

If he's holding it and it goes off, and he survives, he managed to roll away. Same as if someone threw it at him. In CoC, if the damage exceeds a certain threshold (15 points), he has to make a fort save or die, period.

I don't have a problem with d20's handling of hit points, especially with CoC d20's massive damage threshold. In fact, I prefer it so much that I'm likely to pass over Spycraft in favor of d20 Modern.

 

[Synicism]

Although I've never played Deadlands, all I've ever heard about it suggests that the quirks of the system (poker hands for spells, high card for initiative, etc) really helped the flavor of the game and made for some unique gameplay. Changing systems to one that doesn't support the flavor of the game as strongly didn't work in many people's minds.

Well, so far, there are three Deadlands games out there. There's Deadlands, with its custom system, Deadlands d20, and Deadlands GURPS.

Of the three of them, you're right, Deadlands classic, as you called it, is by far the most fun, because of all the neat stuff you can do with it and the cool toys it gives out. It isn't perfect (it takes, on the average, two or three head shots with a .45 to kill a normal person), but it's certainly a lot of fun tossing cards and poker chips around!

Deadlands GURPS isn't bad. It's certainly much more deadly than Deadlands clsssic - that pistol shot to the head will probably drop you outright. And the combat system is quicker. It also does a pretty good job of maintaining the feel with cards for spellcasting and poker chips for different things, but shoehorning the game into a "generic" system, even a tweaked one, takes something away. It's somehow lacking, especially when you get into the Harrowed.

Deadlands d20 is a good, solid d20 product. It's mechanically well done and comparatively well written and edited. However, it just ain't Deadlands. All the "feel" of it is gone. As a friend of mine put it, "If I want to play Deadlands, I want to play DEADLANDS. If I want to play D&D cowboys and cthulus, I'll play d20 Deadlands." He has a point. It's somehow not the same, quirks of the d20 system notwithstanding. I'm not saying it wasn't fun. But it just wasn't DEADLANDS.

You're absolutely right on with the idea of the tailored systems. Deadlands is tailored for its style of gameplay. Storyteller is perfect for White Wolf's WoD games. The AEG "roll and keep" system is ideal for L5R. Some games need their own systems or they cease being those games.

 

[JoeCrow]

Just to be anal: No, it isn't (non-open, that is).

From the SRD:
"Massive Damage
If a character ever sustains damage so massive that 50 points of damage or more are inflicted in one deduction, and the character isn't killed outright, the character must make a Fortitude save (DC 15). If this saving throw fails, the character dies regardless of current hit points."

Now, given that in the SRD, changing the numbers (either the 50 or the Save DC) up or down is such an obvious derivative (akin to making Skill Focus give +3 to a skill, for example), that no one would attempt to claim it was any sort of violation of anything.

I dunno. Anthony V seemed to feel that unless said rule was verifiably developed by someone who'd never seen the CoC book and had never spoken to anyone who'd seen it, the similarity to copyrighted text might be actionable. At least that's the impression I got when I asked him about it on the Ogf-list. I may have misinterpreted his somewhat non-committal reply.